What the documents look like
After-sales repairs and reships aim to restore a product to working use. Closing a case through a direct refund is a different matter. The daily objects in this category are repair requests, reship orders, inspection reports and accessory outbound orders. These come from the after-sales system, the order system, repair outlets and the accessory warehouse. Repair requests and reship orders update per order; accessory outbound orders update daily. In cross-border material and multilingual retrieval, the task is to associate the subject, product, fault description and language version across these documents so that a later decision between repair and reship can be made. The update frequency affects the reading pace of document status on the retrieval side and does not imply full synchronization or transaction-triggered mechanisms.
Constraints at the model connections step
Multilingual material means one fault description can exist in several language versions. Model connections require checking language model capability against the input the application actually needs. The retrieval side depends on an index model to build associations between text chunks, and the system needs at least one language model and one index model to work normally. AI Proxy is the dependency service for model connections, and the App and Admin each check channel configuration. A similarity score reflects textual relevance only. It does not perform permission filtering or business-entity isolation. Whether a retrieved result is usable still requires manual checking of the document subject and authorization status.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: a brand after-sales outlet submits a repair request with the original text "The customer reported a fault on 5 March 2026. The product is a power tool. The fault description is failure to start. Attachments include one inspection report. Request status is pending review." The same batch also contains a reship order draft with the original text "Reship accessory: one battery pack. Related repair request number WX-2026-0305. Outbound status: not yet outbound." The proposed sentence is "This repair request has approved a reship of one battery pack." The pending request is "Please retrieve the historical handling records of this request and confirm whether the reship has been executed."
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting value for this exercise | Checking method |
|---|---|---|
AIPROXY_API_ENDPOINT | Enter the AI Proxy service root address without appending /v1 | Compare with the deployment document example format and confirm no extra path |
AIPROXY_API_TOKEN | Enter a non-empty admin token | Compare with the server configuration and confirm it matches and is non-empty |
| Language model | Enable one model that supports Chinese and the target foreign language | Check model capability against the input the application needs |
| Index model | Enable one index model | Confirm the system has at least one usable index model |
| Model mapping | Map the model FastGPT requests to the upstream actual model | Check that the mapping matches the upstream model ID |
| Channel test | Run a model test on the configured channel | Observe the test result and request duration to confirm the model is valid |
Reason for the starting values: these values come from fields and conditions already stated in the official documents and are used for this paper check. They do not represent official default values. The retrieval side has no documented switch related to permission filtering, so no such item is set here.
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieved reship order draft as evidence that the reship was executed. The reship order original text says "Outbound status: not yet outbound," while the proposed sentence says "has approved a reship." The subject is the same but the field values differ, and a draft status does not constitute execution evidence.
- Treating "pending review" on the repair request as a lack of operating permission. Pending review only shows the request is at the review stage. It does not show the submitting party lacks permission, and it does not show the reship was rejected.
- Using a similarity score in place of entity checking. The relevant text returned by retrieval may come from another repair request. A high or low score does not indicate that the record belongs to the same request number, so each record needs checking against the request number.
How to verify the setup
- Input the repair request original text and the proposed sentence from the hypothetical sample, and compare the field values "pending review" and "has approved a reship." If, under the same request number, the two point to different states, the proposed sentence does not match the original text and is not supported.
- Input the pending request "Please retrieve the historical handling records of this request and confirm whether the reship has been executed," and compare whether the retrieved records include a reship order whose outbound status is "outbound." If the returned records contain only the "not yet outbound" draft, the reship execution status remains to be verified and cannot be judged as executed.
- Input the reship order draft original text and compare the related repair request number WX-2026-0305 with the number in the repair request original text. If the numbers match and the outbound status is "not yet outbound," the reship is in a not-executed state. If retrieval returns an empty result, record that gap and do not infer that the reship was executed or cancelled.
The checks above are a paper exercise. No retrieval, test or deployment was actually executed. Empty results, pending review and draft status are kept as stated in the original text, and no authorization or effective terms are added.